使用细读作为评价可视化的方法

Annie Bares, Stephanie Zeller, Cullen D. Jackson, Daniel F. Keefe, F. Samsel
{"title":"使用细读作为评价可视化的方法","authors":"Annie Bares, Stephanie Zeller, Cullen D. Jackson, Daniel F. Keefe, F. Samsel","doi":"10.1109/BELIV51497.2020.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Visualization research and practice that incorporates the arts make claims to being more effective in connecting with users on a human level. However, these claims are difficult to measure quantitatively. In this paper, we present a follow-on study to use close reading, a humanities method from literary studies, to evaluate visualizations created using artistic processes [Bares 2020]. Close reading is a method in literary studies that we’ve previously explored as a method for evaluating visualizations. To use close reading as an evaluation method, we guide participants through a series of steps designed to prompt them to interpret the visualization’s formal, informational, and contextual features. Here we elaborate on our motivations for using close reading as a method to evaluate visualizations, and enumerate the procedures we used in the study to evaluate a 2D visualization, including modifications made because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings of this study include that close reading is an effective formative method to elicit information related to interpretation and critique; user subject position; and suspicion or skepticism. Information gained through close reading is valuable in the visualization design and iteration processes, both related to designing features and other formal elements more effectively, as well as in considering larger questions of context and framing.","PeriodicalId":282674,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Close Reading as a Method for Evaluating Visualizations\",\"authors\":\"Annie Bares, Stephanie Zeller, Cullen D. Jackson, Daniel F. Keefe, F. Samsel\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/BELIV51497.2020.00011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Visualization research and practice that incorporates the arts make claims to being more effective in connecting with users on a human level. However, these claims are difficult to measure quantitatively. In this paper, we present a follow-on study to use close reading, a humanities method from literary studies, to evaluate visualizations created using artistic processes [Bares 2020]. Close reading is a method in literary studies that we’ve previously explored as a method for evaluating visualizations. To use close reading as an evaluation method, we guide participants through a series of steps designed to prompt them to interpret the visualization’s formal, informational, and contextual features. Here we elaborate on our motivations for using close reading as a method to evaluate visualizations, and enumerate the procedures we used in the study to evaluate a 2D visualization, including modifications made because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings of this study include that close reading is an effective formative method to elicit information related to interpretation and critique; user subject position; and suspicion or skepticism. Information gained through close reading is valuable in the visualization design and iteration processes, both related to designing features and other formal elements more effectively, as well as in considering larger questions of context and framing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":282674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV)\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/BELIV51497.2020.00011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/BELIV51497.2020.00011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

结合艺术的可视化研究和实践声称在人类层面上更有效地与用户建立联系。然而,这些说法很难量化。在本文中,我们提出了一项后续研究,使用近距离阅读(一种来自文学研究的人文方法)来评估使用艺术过程创建的可视化[Bares 2020]。细读是文学研究中的一种方法,我们之前曾将其作为评估视觉效果的一种方法。为了使用细读作为一种评估方法,我们引导参与者通过一系列步骤,旨在促使他们解释可视化的形式、信息和上下文特征。在这里,我们详细阐述了使用细读作为评估可视化方法的动机,并列举了我们在研究中用于评估2D可视化的程序,包括因COVID-19大流行而进行的修改。本研究的主要发现包括:细读是一种有效的形成性方法,可以引出与解释和批评相关的信息;用户主体位置;怀疑或怀疑。通过仔细阅读获得的信息在可视化设计和迭代过程中是有价值的,这两者都与更有效地设计功能和其他形式元素有关,也与考虑更大的上下文和框架问题有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using Close Reading as a Method for Evaluating Visualizations
Visualization research and practice that incorporates the arts make claims to being more effective in connecting with users on a human level. However, these claims are difficult to measure quantitatively. In this paper, we present a follow-on study to use close reading, a humanities method from literary studies, to evaluate visualizations created using artistic processes [Bares 2020]. Close reading is a method in literary studies that we’ve previously explored as a method for evaluating visualizations. To use close reading as an evaluation method, we guide participants through a series of steps designed to prompt them to interpret the visualization’s formal, informational, and contextual features. Here we elaborate on our motivations for using close reading as a method to evaluate visualizations, and enumerate the procedures we used in the study to evaluate a 2D visualization, including modifications made because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings of this study include that close reading is an effective formative method to elicit information related to interpretation and critique; user subject position; and suspicion or skepticism. Information gained through close reading is valuable in the visualization design and iteration processes, both related to designing features and other formal elements more effectively, as well as in considering larger questions of context and framing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extending Recommendations for Creative Visualization-Opportunities Workshops BELIV 2020 Committees [Title page iii] [Copyright notice] BELIV 2020 Preface
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1